Debate on voting threshold takes a dramatic turn between Tulfo, Villar

MANILA, Philippines — Oral arguments tackling the conviction threshold in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial took an unexpected emotional turn after the status and charges of detained senators were alluded to during the proceedings, prompting one of the senator-judges to break down in tears.

This was during the senator-judges’ interpolations when Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo—who was arguing in favor of reducing the threshold—pointed out prevailing “factual circumstances” in Duterte’s trial, specifically how some senators simply cannot participate in it.

READ: Defense, prosecution to present oral arguments on voting threshold

Article continues after this advertisement

“Kaya makatwiran lamang po, suriin natin ngayon kung paano nakakaapekto ang mga bagong pangyayaring ito sa computation po ng two-thirds vote na hinihingi po o sinasabi ng ating konstitusyon,” said Tulfo.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

(So, it only makes sense to examine how these new events affect the computation of the two-thirds vote that our constitution requires or states.)

Tulfo then pointed out that the seeming gap between what charges senators typically face during the composition of the 1987 Constitution and now may have affected how it was framed.

“Ang mga kaso po ng mga senador noon, either subversion, sedition, ‘yun po ang mga kaso. Pero ang mga senador po ay hindi po makakasuhan ng kriminal, plunder, at kung ano-ano pa,” said Tulfo.

(The cases of senators then were either subversion, sedition; those were their cases not plunder, and anything else)

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Camille Villar brings aid, honors earthquake hero in GenSan

“Kaya po hindi siguro naisip ng mga framers, ayon po dito sa isang abogado na nagpadala po sa akin ng note, na maaaring wala po itong panahon na ito noong itinatag ang 1987 Constitution dahil ang mga kaso ng mga senador noon,” he added.

Article continues after this advertisement

(That’s why the framers probably didn’t consider, according to a lawyer who sent me a note, the current issues we now have when the 1987 Constitution was established.)

Camille Villar gets emotional

In response to Tulfo’s pronouncement, Senator-judge Camille Villar came to the defense of her fellow minority senators, stating that being detained and not being able to partake in the proceedings was “not their choice.

“I think it’s unfair to call them out, that their crimes are of plunder and of theft, because none of those senators have been convicted,” a visibly upset Villar said.

She then urged her colleagues to stop attacking one another, reminding them to give each other due respect.

“Kasi lahat naman po ng wala rito, hindi naman po sila napatunayan na may sala. Hindi po sila plunderer, hindi po sila magnanakaw, hindi po sila napatunayan na ganoon,” the senator said.

(Because all those who are not here, they have not been proven guilty. They are not plunderers, they are not thieves, they have not been proven to be that.)

“So ‘wag naman po tayo tumayo diyan at mag-low blow ng ganoon,” she added.

(So let’s not stand there and blow a low blow like that.)

Tulfo, in another manifestation, then directly addressed Villar’s words and stated that he never said the detained senators have already been convicted.

He maintained that what he said were not attacks, but merely a confrontation of “the present reality that some senators are physically or legally unable to participate in the impeachment trial.”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“The issue of detained senators is so intertwined in the determination of denominators, we cannot discuss the baseline without touching on the reasons why four of our senators are absent,” he said. /mr